I wrote this in response to Bill's inquiry over at RedLeg Nation, but thought I'd repost it here.
Here's Bill's question:
Scenario:
You're a HOF voter... do you vote for Mark McGwire or not? Why or why not?
And my response:
I do. I don't know if he took steroids or not. As far as I know, there's been no evidence presented that he did except that he refused to answer questions at the senate hearing. And I don't agree with "convicting" a guy on charges of long term cheating without evidence.
But even if there was evidence, he played in an era in which that sort of doping was permitted (or at least not restricted) and reportedly widespread. I'm not sure it's reasonable to try to correct baseball's mismanagement of the use of performance-enhancing substances after the fact. Do you want to throw anyone who used amphetamines out of the hall of fame as well? That goes back into the '60's. So, for me, it's about his performance as a player and nothing more.
And the performance is absolutely there. 583 home runs, career 0.394 OBP, career 0.588 SLG, career 0.982 OPS, 100.9 career WARP3. Six consecutive years with a 1.000+ OPS, during which he had 400+ plate appearances all but the last year. Yeah, for me, he's a hall of famer.
I would vote 'no'.
ReplyDeleteAlthough McGuire has not admitted steroid use, he has come very close.
It is interesting to me that he denied use in interviews for years. However, when put under oath in front of a Congressional committee, he declined to answer questions about his past use of steroids. To me, that was tantamount to an admission.
I know he has been belittled, but Jose Canseco clearly implicates McGuire for steroid use in his book "Juiced". They bought and used steroids together. McGuire admitted using ando, and his body size and type changed dranatically after he started using. His power numbers took off late in his career, and he also suffered numerous injuries that were steroid side effects.
Rules were antiquated at the time, and MLB looked the other way. Nonetheless, if the HOF is supposed to have an ethical component to it at all (one argument used against Pete Rose), then McGuire should stay out. He clearly gained an advantage by doping up.
100% agreement with your post.
ReplyDelete"he played in an era in which that sort of doping was permitted" and should not be punished for it. pitchers did it, too. it's just part of the era.
i keep saying the thing about the amphetamines, too. the big red machine was part of that. i highly doubt reds fans would say johnny bench does not deserve to be in the hall, yet he played at a time when everyone who was anyone used.
some of ruth's home runs bounced over the fence, as rules for home runs were different in his day. he "cleary gained an advantage" by being allowed to bounce balls over a fence.
there is no proof that steroids contributed to the power numbers. i mean, conditioning and nutrition is better these days, so there is no way of knowing the effect that had on the increased power numbers.
bottomline is people just want sensationalism. they need to quit watching their lawyer and cop shows and just enjoy the game.
I'm not really sure I want to get into this arguement, but...
ReplyDeleteCanseco has clearly implicated McGuire. Canseco may not be the most credible of characters, but in this sense I believe him. As already stated, McGuire basically implicated himself at the hearings.
Baseball policy is irrelevant. Steroids are and were illegal If he were caught with them, he could have gone to jail.
He cheated. He cheated knowingly for personal gain. He broke the law.
Thanks for the comments folks. I certainly understand the arguments against McGwire, I just don't agree with them.
ReplyDeleteBaseball policy is irrelevant. Steroids are and were illegal If he were caught with them, he could have gone to jail.
Two points:
* If we're going to talk about the law, I think we should operate under the innocent-until-proven-guilty paradigm. The two pieces of evidence that I've seen -- Canseco's accusations and McGwire's decision to not answer questions -- make him suspicious, but, to me, are not enough to clinch the case. Especially before we hear anything from the defense.
* Many other players have cheated in much the same way, many of which are undoubtedly in the hall of fame. Amphetamines (or greenies) have been reportedly used for decades to a degree more widespread than steroids ever were until MLB began testing for them this season. They're every bit as illegal as steriods. So again, I just don't see this as a good enough reason to single out McGwire, as the odds are that a substantial number of hall of fame members were also users of now-banned substances.
I'm extremely pleased that there's a real drug testing program in effect for MLB players now. And I'm also comfortable to just judge past players based on their impact on baseball games. ESPECIALLY when there isn't enough evidence for me to be comfortable concluding that a particular individual is guilty. I'm sure others will disagree with me on that, and that's fine. But that's my outlook. -j
The post mentioning steroids being illegal is true....
ReplyDeleteHowever, if I had a vote for HOF, which I don't, I would not presume innocence after a player has been implicated by another player, and refused to answer under oath.
If a player wants my vote, and he was placed under oath and asked the steroid question, and refused to answer, he loses my vote.
If I was on a criminal jury, or deciding whether to file criminal charges (I am a former prosecutor), I would not vote to indict or convict. In THAT context, certainly it is innocent until proven guilty.
However my standards for HOF are different...'invoking the 5th' and being implicated by another player takes ANY player out of running for my HOF vote....that's my take on it, and I certainly respect contrary opinions as well.